At the request of Dr. Brian Rothschild Saving Seafood is distributing the following invitation to a fisheries meeting at the New Bedford Whaling Museum on Monday, May 13th
Congressman Bill Keating (D-MA) and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell are sponsoring the meeting and welcome members of the industry to participate.
The meeting will address, among other things, the September 2013 expiration of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, potential improvements, and innovative solutions. It is important to the Congressman and Mayor that the fishery stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input into this process.
Dear Friend,
We look forward to seeing you at the joint meeting of the Federal Fishing Advisory Board and the Mayor's Ocean and Fisheries Council in the New Bedford Whaling Museum on Monday, May 13, 1:00-3:00 p.m.
This will provide notes on the agenda, which will be distributed before the meeting.
The meeting will open with remarks from Congressman Keating and Mayor Mitchell, who are sponsoring the meeting. Spokespersons from various industry groups and others who have been active in the fishery debates will give short presentations on the current state of the fishery and where they see we should be headed.
We will then have a presentation by Emily Keiley on progress that we have been making in our end-to-end review (led by Steve Cadrin) of stock assessments. As you know, Congressman Keating is an early sponsor of the workshops. As part of the review, we have planned three workshops. The first workshop, on the effect of climate on stock assessments, is now complete. Because of the success of the first workshop, we anticipate developing a continuing series of workshops.
Next, Kevin Stokesbury will present industry/SMAST's results on its first industry-cooperative cruise to develop alternative techniques for sampling fish (also supported by Congressman Keating). Videos will be shown of the fish as they pass through a standard industry trawl so that they can be counted.
The next part of the meeting will be devoted to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As you know, it might take a while for the actual reauthorization to take place, but it is not too early to establish our viewpoints, especially inasmuch as the first reauthorization hearing has already taken place.
There are many issues that might arise. Some deal directly with the wording of the act, others have to do with past or future implementation of the act inasmuch as, in the final outcome, it is difficult to separate implementation from the language of the legislation.
Here are three of many examples to demonstrate the idea as you focus on reauthorization issues.
National Standard 1 attempts to strike a balance between preventing overfishing and achieving optimal yield. There are two problems. The first is that there is no scientifically unique definition of overfishing that can be used to test National Standard 1. The second is that NE fisheries have not been achieving optimum yield for years. The TACs far exceed the actual landings.
National Standard 2 says that fisheries management shall be based upon the "best scientific information available." There are a number of problems with this standard. First, there are no checks and balances in the management system that ensures that all alternative are considered and that the best alternative is selected on a rational basis. Second, whenever "best science available" is brought before a court of law, the courts always deny the plaintiffs complaint because the courts believe that the government is always right according to their adopted doctrine of deference to the agency.
As a final example, consider National Standard 8 …consistent with not overfishing and rebuilding stocks, take into account the importance of fisheries resources… to provide sustained participation of communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on communities. The problem here relates to not having a unique definition of overfishing, nor a rational buffer to prevent overfishing. The problem also relates to having a thorough economic analysis to even determine if the standards are met.
As I said, there are many examples. We have to think of mechanisms that can be codified that can resolve the problems of either the language of the law or ways that the law is implemented such that the intent of Congress does not seem to be addressed.
It is important to realize, regarding the reauthorization, that finalized results will probably take some time despite their importance. At the same time, continued debate leading up to the reauthorization can only help shape the final results.
At the same time, important implementation issues need to be attended to. For example, there appears to be a consensus that there is a need for annual (rather than multiannual) stock assessments. There is a feeling that these stock assessments should be simpler than the present assessments. In addition, where possible, the councils should be presented with the results of different stock assessment models (for the same stock) so that council members can evaluate the range of variability and uncertainty in the different assessments.
In our meeting on Monday, it will be difficult to hear from everyone because of limited time. Yet it is essential that we do hear from you. If you do not have satisfactory input, could I suggest that you e-mail us with your ideas and approaches? We will then consolidate these into a single document that can be used as talking points for a discussion with the relevant committee(s). We will of course share this document with you.
All the best,
Brian